2016 (5) TMI 263 - AT - Income Tax

Tribunal remands car expense issue, confirms enhanced rental income assessment

Nimish A. Munim c/o. Texchem Industries Versus Asst. CIT-10 (1), Mumbai

Nimish A. Munim c/o. Texchem Industries Versus Asst. CIT-10 (1), Mumbai - TMI Issues Involved:1. Disallowance of car-related expenses against business income.2. Assessment of rental income under the head 'Income from House Property'.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Disallowance of Car-related Expenses Against Business Income:The assessee contested the disallowance of expenses (Rs. 1.07 lacs) related to car usage against business income derived from interest and remuneration from two firms. The Assessing Officer (A.O.) disallowed these expenses due to the lack of direct nexus between the expenses and the business activities, and the possibility of personal use of the car. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] upheld this disallowance, stating that the income from interest and remuneration should be classified as income from other sources under Section 56, and that the claimed expenses had no nexus to this income.Upon review, the Tribunal acknowledged that income from interest and remuneration to a partner is assessable as business income under Section 28(v). Thus, expenses incurred for business purposes should be allowable under Section 37(1). However, the Tribunal noted the absence of evidence showing the car was used exclusively for business purposes. The Tribunal emphasized that the firm and partners are distinct entities under the Act, and questioned why a partner would bear firm expenses. The Tribunal restored the matter to the A.O. to verify the claims and determine the deductible car expenses based on factual findings, clarifying that the onus of proof lies on the assessee.2. Assessment of Rental Income Under 'Income from House Property':The assessee owned a flat and two garages, rented to a company and two partnership firms, declaring the rental income as house property income under Section 22 read with Section 23(1)(a). The A.O. suspected the rental income was understated due to the close nexus between the assessee and the tenants, and estimated higher rental values based on market inquiries. The CIT(A) upheld this estimation, distinguishing it from a precedent case (CIT vs. Shiv Mohan Lal) where the properties were used for the owner's business.The Tribunal observed that the assessee's claim of using the properties for his business was misconceived, as the entities were separate legal persons. The Tribunal noted procedural lapses, such as the assessee not being confronted with the Inspector's report, but criticized the assessee for not seeking the report or providing relevant market rent data. The Tribunal upheld the A.O.'s enhanced rental valuation, stating it aligned with the fair rent expectation under Section 23, and allowed maintenance charges of Rs. 10,096/- as deductible, directing verification if these were related to the rented properties.The Tribunal concluded that the decision in Shiv Mohan Lal did not support the assessee's case, as it dealt with different facts and did not address valuation issues. The Tribunal confirmed the Revenue's action but granted partial relief by allowing maintenance charges after verification.Conclusion:The appeal was partly allowed, with the Tribunal remanding the car expense issue back to the A.O. for verification and confirming the enhanced rental income assessment while allowing maintenance charges. The order was pronounced in open court on April 29, 2016.